Class Actions

• Member of team defending energy company in competing royalty class actions and mass actions representing more than 12,000 class members filed in state and federal courts, including CAFA removal, opposition to class certification, appeal of overlapping class-certification decisions, dispositive motions, and trial. 
• In federal case, Smith v. SEECO, Inc. et al., after a two-week trial, co-counsel and firm achieved a complete defense victory, with the jury rejecting the plaintiff’s claim for $300 million in actual and punitive damages and penalties.
• Pre-certification defense and dismissal of putative Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action against healthcare information, services, and technology company
• Defended competing shareholder class actions and individual suits in state and federal court seeking to block merger transaction of publicly held client

Intellectual Property and Patent Litigation

• Defended patent infringement action Bombardier Recreational Products and BRP U.S. Inc. v. Arctic Cat (D. Minn), including Markman and dispositive motion proceedings and post-trial protection of verdict. After a three week-trial, the jury invalidated BRP’s asserted patents.
• Assisted with appeal brief to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals defending a client’s $46 million patent-infringement judgment.  
• Drafted and analyzed arguments for Markman and dispositive motions in several patent-infringement cases.

Privacy and Data Security

• Defense of single-plaintiff TCPA claim alleging hundreds of unauthorized, automated calls against financial services and technology company, successfully compelling arbitration and achieving nominal settlement.
• Advised industry leading data-management company on compliance with data privacy and security regulations, including requirements related to the TCPA, HIPAA, HITECH and the Affordable Care Act.
• Represented financial services company in protecting financial information from public disclosure under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act.

Pro Bono

• Represented Muslim inmate in religious exercise claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA against the Arkansas Department of Corrections. After a federal bench trial, the court found the Department’s meal-plan policy violated the federal statute and constitution by burdening Mr. Muhammad’s sincere religious belief that he keep a halal diet and consume halal meat daily and that the Department failed to show its policy was related to legitimate prison concerns.